Ruling that teachers cannot be compelled to work as supervisors in the Sixth Economic Census, the Bombay High Court has struck down a show-cause notice issued to a school teacher for refusing to perform such duty.
The judgement was delivered by Justices A S Oka and Revati Mohite Dhere recently on a petition filed by Ramnath Mote, a teacher employed with a school in Bhiwandi, who had challenged the show-cause notice issued to him by the Joint Census Commissioner.
"It cannot be disputed that the work of Sixth Economic Census (financed fully by the Central Government) has no connection with education," the judges observed.
"The mandate of section 27 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act is that no teachers shall be deployed for non educational purposes other than the decennial population census, disaster relief duties or duties relating to elections to the local authority or State Legislatures or Parliament as the case may be," the bench said.
The population census referred to in section 27 is the Census conducted under the provisions of the Census Act, 1948, and Rules framed therein. This exercise was undertaken in 2011, the judges remarked.
Perusal of Government Resolution dated September 25 shows that Sixth Economic Census has nothing to do with the Census under the Census Act, 1948. Under section 27 of the said Act, the teachers can be deployed for work of population census under the Census Act and not for Sixth Economic Census.
The Sixth Economic Census is being carried out in exercise of powers under the collection of Statistics Act, 2008, as is clear from the show cause notice dated October 10, said the judges.
"Suffice to say that the work which is sought to be assigned by Joint Census Commissioner to teachers will not fall in the exemption carved out in section 27 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act," the bench said.
"Therefore, the action of Joint Census Commissioner of appointing teachers as supervisors or compelling teachers to work for the sixth economic census is prima facie contrary to section 27 of the Act," the judges said.
